ANd the simple fact that they have to do that before it will be usable means that Linux has no chance on the desktop.
They have to make these choices every day, whether they're buying jeans, a cellphone plan or a car. Why should Linux on the desktop be any different?
Hate to tell you, but for most people, the software they use is not terribly important, the work they do with it may be.
For most people, the car they drive isn't important as long as it gets them to work. But they still have to choose one. There's no "default car" but many people still manage to buy one that fits their needs.
Choice is good when you want it, bad when it gets in the way of more important things.
It only gets in the way when they don't know how to say "that doesn't matter" when making their decisions. Having 65 million choices won't hurt you if you can eliminate most of them with one decision, and bring it down to three or four with two or three decisions. But they have to know what they want. If what they want is to not have to know what they want, then I can't help them. Nobody can.
Making decisions from available choices is part of everyday life and to believe that software choice should somehow be immune to this is ridiculous. They only need to know what questions to ask and the very first one is "What do I need it to do?" Nobody can answer that but them.
They are perfectly free to choose to let someone else make that decision for them. But don't pretend that it's the software's fault for having too many choices instead of acknowledging that they didn't want to make the decision.
Your problem is that you think NORMAL people...have the time, energy, and patience to learn which of their 8 text editors is the best.
If they don't care enough to find out, why should I care if they don't find out? They don't need the "best", they need what meets their requirements. And the only one who knows their requirements is them. They have to determine what they need, what they don't need and what they don't care about. Then they have to make an effort to find out what meets those needs. If they're not willing to do that, fine, that's their choice. But don't limit my choices because some people are too lazy to make one.
"Too many choices" is just another way of saying "I'm too lazy to think for myself."
There is ALWAYS a space for a "write in", in which case you, me, and everyone else can quite easily cast a vote for anyone we choose. In fact, I actaully know a woman who has voted for Mickey Mouse in the last 15 presidential elections.
When was the last time a write-in candidate came anywhere close to winning? When was the last time anyone not from one of the two major parties came close to winning? Voting independant is like rooting for the NY Rangers: you might as well not bother.
In fact, I'm willing to bet that Mickey Mouse is the write-in front runner.
1. There is no constitutional right to copyright. The progress clause of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to create copyright laws, but does not guarantee these rights to authors and inventors in any way, shape or form. Nor does it require Congress to make these laws. Congress could abolish all copyright laws tomorrow and not be in violation of the Constitution.
2. The plaintiff is specifically concerned with books that are no longer published but are still protected by copyright. Books that would otherwise be unavailable to the public.
3. The progress clause of the consitution limits Congress' authority to laws which "promote the progress of science and useful arts". I fail to see how automatically protecting works that are unavailable to the public promotes progress of anything.
Copyright is the means, not the end. The end is the benefit society receives by making creative works available to the public. Copyright is the incentive to do so. If the works aren't available to the public, why do they deserve protection?
So then grossly inflating the single largest estimate from 15 years ago, which included many, many more things that Bush's plan didn't, and then repeating the figure numerous times without once confirming it is acceptable journalism?
Just because there are no "facts" doesn't mean you get to make them up.
I just don't get being offended by a single word regardless of the context. If he had said "bloody brilliant" or "freaking brilliant" or "stunningly brilliant" it wouldn't have changed the meaning of the sentence one bit, but somehow this one word is offending millions. It's a learned behavior. People are offended by "that" word because they were taught to be, without regard for the meaning, and for no other reason. You can say things hundreds of times more offensive and be covered by Freedom of Speech (which, just to avoid confusion, I think is a good thing), but utter that one word, regardless of the context or what you meant by it, and you are subject to derision and fines.
Your response to that word is caused by emotions and meaning that you assign to it and is therefore nobody else's problem but your own. And no, just because a large number of people, even most people, think the same way doesn't make it right. "Popular" != "right".
Excuse me, but in the case of airport screening for terrorist activity I do think that racial discrimination is exactly part of the *right* approach.
You and Bill Maher have this exactly wrong. As soon as you start picking Muslims and Arabs for extra security screenings, guess who's going to be carrying the bomb. Do you really think there aren't 60 year old white females on the planet who wouldn't be willing to do it? It doesn't matter that they're less likely now, because as soon as you stop checking them, they become much more likely.
This isn't like poker where you play the probabilities, because as soon as the security becomes even the least bit predictable, the probabilities change. It absolutely must be completely random for no other reason than to keep it from being predictable.
Spam is wrong, not just because it's unwanted, but because it puts the cost of delivery (at least partially) on the recipient. That's what makes it so cheap. It's the same reason why telemarketers aren't allowed to call cellphones and advertisers can't send junk faxes.
They can spam me all they want once they're paying the entire cost of delivery.
If someone steals a car and uses it to commit a crime, is the owner of the car guilty of the crime?
"It sets a precedent now in the judicial system where a hacker can just claim somebody took over his computer, the program vanished and he's free and clear,"
To extend my analogy a little more, the owner of the car used to commit the crime could claim the car was stolen and returned.
Just because it's hard to catch the person who actually committed the crime doesn't mean someone else should be punished for it. It just means that law enforcement is going to have to work harder to catch the guilty party.
Mitch Glazier, the RIAA's senior vice president and lobbyist, says "notice is a good idea, and quite frankly, P2P services ought to be doing it voluntarily...So, we support the chairman, we like the concept--but agree that it is overly broad in its current form."
How bad does it have to be for the RIAA to think it's too broad? That's like Rush Limbaugh saying [insert name here] is too conservative.
Are you going to be around your kids every single time they are on the computer? What if they aren't at home?
Getting your kids to do the right thing when you are there is trivial. Getting your kids to do the right thing when you aren't there is what parenting is all about.
If you can't trust your kids to be left alone, then don't leave them alone.
Now, can someone explain just why SunComm thought it was a good idea to threaten litigation, but then back off
Because if it went to court, it could be damaging to the DMCA. The threat of litigation can be as, if not more, effective than actual litigation to get people to do what you want them to, especially with the provisions in the DMCA which make the penalties much worse if you don't stop doing it when asked to.
To use the parent comment's analogy, they don't have to swing the bat, just threaten to. If the DMCA gets overturned, they won't have their bat to threaten you with anymore.
effectively publicizing the Shift thing even more for the two people who hadn't heard about it already?
They weren't counting on Halderman yelling "Hey everyone! He's threatening to hit me with his bat if I don't stop pointing at this shift key!"
The way to respond to the demise of the commercial CD is not to sue Internet-users. It is to figure out new ways to make money on music.
I can't remember where, but I read about a theory among economists that says the business entrenched in a technology is rarely able to embrace the new technology which will eventually unseat them. They have too much invested in the old technology and the risk in using the new techology is too high to warrant a radical change in the way they do business. However, the "upstart" company, with not much to lose, is in a much better position to take the risk. This is not to say that it never happens, but rarely is it a "good business decision".
What it boils down to, is that the RIAA is not very likely to embrace the new business model despite the fact that most everyone else can see how much better it is.
I for one would love to be able to vote from the comfort of my home/work/cafe without having to wait in lines. Overall voter turnout could be boosted.
People who don't care enough to vote don't care enough to be informed. Pointing at "voter apathy" and claiming it's the problem is extremely short sighted. Voter apathy is a symptom, not the cause. Making voting easier to get better turnout is just going to ensure that more uninformed people are going to vote. I can't see how this is a good thing. Make people care about the issues and they'll find the way to the polls all by themselves.
That's when my good pals Hancock, Franklin, Washington, and Jefferson, along with a few other buds, got together and came up with this whole fair trial system.
ObSpicoli: "So, what this Jefferson dude was saying was, we left this England place because it was bogus, but if we don't get some cool rules, pronto, we'll just be bogus too. Yea?"
Slashdot Mirror
ANd the simple fact that they have to do that before it will be usable means that Linux has no chance on the desktop.
They have to make these choices every day, whether they're buying jeans, a cellphone plan or a car. Why should Linux on the desktop be any different?
Hate to tell you, but for most people, the software they use is not terribly important, the work they do with it may be.
For most people, the car they drive isn't important as long as it gets them to work. But they still have to choose one. There's no "default car" but many people still manage to buy one that fits their needs.
Choice is good when you want it, bad when it gets in the way of more important things.
It only gets in the way when they don't know how to say "that doesn't matter" when making their decisions. Having 65 million choices won't hurt you if you can eliminate most of them with one decision, and bring it down to three or four with two or three decisions. But they have to know what they want. If what they want is to not have to know what they want, then I can't help them. Nobody can.
Making decisions from available choices is part of everyday life and to believe that software choice should somehow be immune to this is ridiculous. They only need to know what questions to ask and the very first one is "What do I need it to do?" Nobody can answer that but them.
They are perfectly free to choose to let someone else make that decision for them. But don't pretend that it's the software's fault for having too many choices instead of acknowledging that they didn't want to make the decision.
Your problem is that you think NORMAL people...have the time, energy, and patience to learn which of their 8 text editors is the best.
If they don't care enough to find out, why should I care if they don't find out? They don't need the "best", they need what meets their requirements. And the only one who knows their requirements is them. They have to determine what they need, what they don't need and what they don't care about. Then they have to make an effort to find out what meets those needs. If they're not willing to do that, fine, that's their choice. But don't limit my choices because some people are too lazy to make one.
"Too many choices" is just another way of saying "I'm too lazy to think for myself."
They waste their time and my tax dollars on stupid hearings and debates. Why don't they do something about the patiot act and dmca first?
Just because there are more important things doesn't make this not important.
Does anyone remember any other technologies that were examined beforehand? I don't.
DeCSS comes to mind...
There is ALWAYS a space for a "write in", in which case you, me, and everyone else can quite easily cast a vote for anyone we choose. In fact, I actaully know a woman who has voted for Mickey Mouse in the last 15 presidential elections.
When was the last time a write-in candidate came anywhere close to winning? When was the last time anyone not from one of the two major parties came close to winning? Voting independant is like rooting for the NY Rangers: you might as well not bother.
In fact, I'm willing to bet that Mickey Mouse is the write-in front runner.
The United States of America: a wholly owned subisiary of Halliburton, Inc.
1. There is no constitutional right to copyright. The progress clause of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to create copyright laws, but does not guarantee these rights to authors and inventors in any way, shape or form. Nor does it require Congress to make these laws. Congress could abolish all copyright laws tomorrow and not be in violation of the Constitution.
2. The plaintiff is specifically concerned with books that are no longer published but are still protected by copyright. Books that would otherwise be unavailable to the public.
3. The progress clause of the consitution limits Congress' authority to laws which "promote the progress of science and useful arts". I fail to see how automatically protecting works that are unavailable to the public promotes progress of anything.
Copyright is the means, not the end. The end is the benefit society receives by making creative works available to the public. Copyright is the incentive to do so. If the works aren't available to the public, why do they deserve protection?
Whether or not Bush had any intention of going through with it does not excuse the media misrepresenting how much it would cost if he did.
So then grossly inflating the single largest estimate from 15 years ago, which included many, many more things that Bush's plan didn't, and then repeating the figure numerous times without once confirming it is acceptable journalism?
Just because there are no "facts" doesn't mean you get to make them up.
I just don't get being offended by a single word regardless of the context. If he had said "bloody brilliant" or "freaking brilliant" or "stunningly brilliant" it wouldn't have changed the meaning of the sentence one bit, but somehow this one word is offending millions. It's a learned behavior. People are offended by "that" word because they were taught to be, without regard for the meaning, and for no other reason. You can say things hundreds of times more offensive and be covered by Freedom of Speech (which, just to avoid confusion, I think is a good thing), but utter that one word, regardless of the context or what you meant by it, and you are subject to derision and fines.
Your response to that word is caused by emotions and meaning that you assign to it and is therefore nobody else's problem but your own. And no, just because a large number of people, even most people, think the same way doesn't make it right. "Popular" != "right".
Get over it. It's just a word.
Excuse me, but in the case of airport screening for terrorist activity I do think that racial discrimination is exactly part of the *right* approach.
You and Bill Maher have this exactly wrong. As soon as you start picking Muslims and Arabs for extra security screenings, guess who's going to be carrying the bomb. Do you really think there aren't 60 year old white females on the planet who wouldn't be willing to do it? It doesn't matter that they're less likely now, because as soon as you stop checking them, they become much more likely.
This isn't like poker where you play the probabilities, because as soon as the security becomes even the least bit predictable, the probabilities change. It absolutely must be completely random for no other reason than to keep it from being predictable.
Spam is wrong, not just because it's unwanted, but because it puts the cost of delivery (at least partially) on the recipient. That's what makes it so cheap. It's the same reason why telemarketers aren't allowed to call cellphones and advertisers can't send junk faxes.
They can spam me all they want once they're paying the entire cost of delivery.
but why don't they just give you two extra copies of album instead of CD-Rs?
Just to use a simplified analogy...
If someone steals a car and uses it to commit a crime, is the owner of the car guilty of the crime?
"It sets a precedent now in the judicial system where a hacker can just claim somebody took over his computer, the program vanished and he's free and clear,"
To extend my analogy a little more, the owner of the car used to commit the crime could claim the car was stolen and returned.
Just because it's hard to catch the person who actually committed the crime doesn't mean someone else should be punished for it. It just means that law enforcement is going to have to work harder to catch the guilty party.
From the Article
Mitch Glazier, the RIAA's senior vice president and lobbyist, says "notice is a good idea, and quite frankly, P2P services ought to be doing it voluntarily...So, we support the chairman, we like the concept--but agree that it is overly broad in its current form."
How bad does it have to be for the RIAA to think it's too broad? That's like Rush Limbaugh saying [insert name here] is too conservative.
Are you going to be around your kids every single time they are on the computer? What if they aren't at home?
Getting your kids to do the right thing when you are there is trivial. Getting your kids to do the right thing when you aren't there is what parenting is all about.
If you can't trust your kids to be left alone, then don't leave them alone.
Now, can someone explain just why SunComm thought it was a good idea to threaten litigation, but then back off
Because if it went to court, it could be damaging to the DMCA. The threat of litigation can be as, if not more, effective than actual litigation to get people to do what you want them to, especially with the provisions in the DMCA which make the penalties much worse if you don't stop doing it when asked to.
To use the parent comment's analogy, they don't have to swing the bat, just threaten to. If the DMCA gets overturned, they won't have their bat to threaten you with anymore.
effectively publicizing the Shift thing even more for the two people who hadn't heard about it already?
They weren't counting on Halderman yelling "Hey everyone! He's threatening to hit me with his bat if I don't stop pointing at this shift key!"
The way to respond to the demise of the commercial CD is not to sue Internet-users. It is to figure out new ways to make money on music.
I can't remember where, but I read about a theory among economists that says the business entrenched in a technology is rarely able to embrace the new technology which will eventually unseat them. They have too much invested in the old technology and the risk in using the new techology is too high to warrant a radical change in the way they do business. However, the "upstart" company, with not much to lose, is in a much better position to take the risk. This is not to say that it never happens, but rarely is it a "good business decision".
What it boils down to, is that the RIAA is not very likely to embrace the new business model despite the fact that most everyone else can see how much better it is.
Now if only there was someone out there truly analogous to Henry Ford - coming out with a true alternative commodity.
The alternative commodity is the packaging and delivery of the music, not the music itself.
I'm having a hard time thinking of a system where PGP is the simpler solution.
RFTA
[/sarcasm]
I haven't closed a sarcasm tag since 1991...
I for one would love to be able to vote from the comfort of my home/work/cafe without having to wait in lines. Overall voter turnout could be boosted.
People who don't care enough to vote don't care enough to be informed. Pointing at "voter apathy" and claiming it's the problem is extremely short sighted. Voter apathy is a symptom, not the cause. Making voting easier to get better turnout is just going to ensure that more uninformed people are going to vote. I can't see how this is a good thing. Make people care about the issues and they'll find the way to the polls all by themselves.
it would take the power out of the hands of the elite and give it to the people.
That only works if the people are informed.
That's when my good pals Hancock, Franklin, Washington, and Jefferson, along with a few other buds, got together and came up with this whole fair trial system.
ObSpicoli: "So, what this Jefferson dude was saying was, we left this England place because it was bogus, but if we don't get some cool rules, pronto, we'll just be bogus too. Yea?"